Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by profile53 894 days ago
I think the counter argument is that renewables are never going to replace coal/oil/gas completely as there will always be the boogey man of “what if there is no wind/sun”. Having a small amount of fossil fuel based capacity in reserve would make a huge difference politically and of the options, coal is probably the best for that.

It is less environmentally damaging than maintaining fracking operations for oil/nat gas, extremely abundant in the U.S., and can be spun up or down on the order of hours so emissions can be kept minimal when plants are not needed.
2 comments
gerdesj 893 days ago
What sort of earth has no sun or wind but bags of coal, which has to be dug up, transported and burned?

Sun and wind are different to coal and oil as power generation sources, however oil n that are finite and diminishing. OK so they probably won't run out in your or my lifetime but that is hardly "never".

link
pfdietz 894 days ago
The backup capacity can eventually burn e-fuels, not fossil fuels, so that counterargument fails.
link
profile53 893 days ago
Totally fair and I agree. But what about between now and eventually?

Eventually renewables will be all we use and eventually fossil fuels will no longer be needed. But between now and eventually, maintaining backup capacity is necessary and coal is probably the best option for that for the continental U.S. Nuclear only works as a base load, fracking/oil has even worse side effects, fusion isn’t ready, and we don’t have much untapped hydrothermal/geothermal

link
pfdietz 893 days ago
Coal is certainly not the best option for the continental US. That would be natural gas. Natural gas can be burned directly in combustion turbines with a fraction of the capital cost of a coal burning powerplant. They are also faster to turn on/off, being basically jet engines.
link
profile53 893 days ago
Most natural gas in the U.S. comes as a byproduct of fracking oil, which imo is worse than coal as reserve power because you have to maintain fracking sites and usually pump a fair amount of oil and briny water alongside the gas. Coal is easier to mine in small amounts afaik and has less local harms (e.g. water contamination, earthquake risk, etc.).
link
pfdietz 893 days ago
No, actually most natural gas in the US is produced as "non-associated" gas, not gas associated with petroleum production.

Coal's been driven out of the market because it can't compete with natural gas. Solids are not as easily handled as gases.

link
profile53 893 days ago
That is incorrect. Somewhere in the order of 90% of US nat gas is shale gas/fracking related.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-na...

link